|
|
|
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:59:55 -0500,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.design
back
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
Replication is not really clustering.
The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange Server
2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for Exchange data,
which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively, SCC (and Exchange
Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler, does not co-exist with
other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4 virtual servers on the
cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires similar hardware and entire
solution needs to be cluster-certified.
Single Copy Clusters
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
provide another layer of redundancy (including across datacenters/sites).
SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or non-clustered/standalone
SCR sources can replicate to clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a
one-to-many and many-to-one relationship.
Standby Continuous Replication
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------
"Thinkpad21" wrote in message
news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>
> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>
> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>
> Thanks !!!
>
> --
>
>
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:32:15 -0800
author: Bharat Suneja [MVP]
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
Also note, since SCR isn't really clustering (though it can be used with SCC
and CCR clusters), it does not provide automated failovers from a SCR source
to a SCR target.
--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
news:eUD$gH0OIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
> Replication is not really clustering.
>
> The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange
> Server 2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for
> Exchange data, which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively,
> SCC (and Exchange Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler,
> does not co-exist with other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4
> virtual servers on the cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires similar
> hardware and entire solution needs to be cluster-certified.
>
> Single Copy Clusters
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
>
> Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
>
> Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
>
> You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
> provide another layer of redundancy (including across datacenters/sites).
> SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or non-clustered/standalone
> SCR sources can replicate to clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a
> one-to-many and many-to-one relationship.
>
> Standby Continuous Replication
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
>
> --
> Bharat Suneja
> MVP - Exchange
> www.zenprise.com
> NEW blog location:
> exchangepedia.com/blog
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
> news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
>> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
>> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>>
>> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
>> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>>
>> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>>
>> Thanks !!!
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:40:11 -0800
author: Bharat Suneja [MVP]
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
thanks alot, after reading my question again, I noticed I left important
information out...
Here is what the client wants to do :
The goal is to have DB, Server and site resiliency...They have under 1000
users, running single Exchange 2003 Server.
Scenario 1 : What client is thinking now
Exchange 2003 Cluster A/P on corp site.
Use a 3rd party product ( Neverfail witch they had previously purchased )
for site resiliency.
Scenario 2 : What we want to recommend them :
Exchange 2007 SP1 either CCR or SCC ( prefer CCR )
Use SCR for site resiliency
This will be on Windows 2003, so we have to make sure Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
with Win2K3 works...on different AD sites...
But client want's us to show them advantages and disadvantages of each...
Any help would be great...
Thanks !!!
--
--
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
news:eUD$gH0OIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
> Replication is not really clustering.
>
> The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange
> Server 2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for
> Exchange data, which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively,
> SCC (and Exchange Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler,
> does not co-exist with other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4
> virtual servers on the cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires similar
> hardware and entire solution needs to be cluster-certified.
>
> Single Copy Clusters
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
>
> Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
>
> Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
>
> You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
> provide another layer of redundancy (including across datacenters/sites).
> SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or non-clustered/standalone
> SCR sources can replicate to clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a
> one-to-many and many-to-one relationship.
>
> Standby Continuous Replication
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
>
> --
> Bharat Suneja
> MVP - Exchange
> www.zenprise.com
> NEW blog location:
> exchangepedia.com/blog
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
> news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
>> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
>> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>>
>> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
>> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>>
>> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>>
>> Thanks !!!
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:08:16 -0500
author: Thinkpad21
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
In terms of Exchange 2007 cluster solutions, CCR will typically always be
preferred over SCC. See
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx for some reasons
why.
But it really depends on what your data loss tolerance is. Continuous
replication (in any form) is not a zero data loss solution. You have the
potential of losing a little bit of data on unscheduled outages. See
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124521.aspx for a discussion of
the data that would be lost in the event of a failover. If you need a zero
data loss solution, then your choice would be to use SCC and third-party
replication.
If you don't need zero data loss, and you can tolerate possibly losing the
data discussed in that article, then CCR+SCR would be our recommended
deployment. SCR does not have any site membership requirements (although it
does have domain membership requirements - see
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx for more detail).
Hope this helps.
--
Regards,
Scott Schnoll
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for
newsgroup purposes only.
"Thinkpad21" wrote in message
news:O2PL$b0OIHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> thanks alot, after reading my question again, I noticed I left important
> information out...
>
> Here is what the client wants to do :
> The goal is to have DB, Server and site resiliency...They have under 1000
> users, running single Exchange 2003 Server.
>
> Scenario 1 : What client is thinking now
> Exchange 2003 Cluster A/P on corp site.
> Use a 3rd party product ( Neverfail witch they had previously purchased )
> for site resiliency.
>
>
> Scenario 2 : What we want to recommend them :
> Exchange 2007 SP1 either CCR or SCC ( prefer CCR )
> Use SCR for site resiliency
> This will be on Windows 2003, so we have to make sure Exchange 2007 SP1
> SCR with Win2K3 works...on different AD sites...
>
> But client want's us to show them advantages and disadvantages of each...
>
> Any help would be great...
> Thanks !!!
>
> --
> --
>
> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
> news:eUD$gH0OIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
>> Replication is not really clustering.
>>
>> The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange
>> Server 2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for
>> Exchange data, which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively,
>> SCC (and Exchange Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler,
>> does not co-exist with other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4
>> virtual servers on the cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires similar
>> hardware and entire solution needs to be cluster-certified.
>>
>> Single Copy Clusters
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
>>
>> Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
>>
>> Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
>>
>> You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
>> provide another layer of redundancy (including across datacenters/sites).
>> SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or
>> non-clustered/standalone SCR sources can replicate to
>> clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a one-to-many and many-to-one
>> relationship.
>>
>> Standby Continuous Replication
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
>>
>> --
>> Bharat Suneja
>> MVP - Exchange
>> www.zenprise.com
>> NEW blog location:
>> exchangepedia.com/blog
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
>> news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
>>> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
>>> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>>>
>>> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
>>> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>>>
>>> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>>>
>>> Thanks !!!
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:46:04 -0800
author: Scott Schnoll [MSFT]
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
If you go SCC instead of CCR, then your hardware needs to be cluster
certified.
If you go CCR instead of SCR, then you potentially can lose some data
(albeit a small amount, in terms of time you can't really quantifiy it).
If you go SCC instead of CCR, you consume less disk space (although it's an
arguably more expense shared disk solution that you use)
and the list goes on.
Within a geograpic location, you're probably as worried about scheduled
failover as you are unscheduled failovers (rolling updates, minimizing down
time, etc.), so you'll need to weigh the two options carefully.
Across geography your requirements may be the same as within a geographic
location, or they may differ. If you can accept some data loss and a manual
recovery process SCC + SCR or CCR + SCR may work for you.
When dealing with SCR, you have a couple more options to consider. Which
set of manual steps will you use to recover? You could do a standby cluster
with recovercms, or you could leverage database portability and restore to
an alternate server. The client mix can be an important factor when making
this decision.
John
"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote in message
news:OfDEuw0OIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In terms of Exchange 2007 cluster solutions, CCR will typically always be
> preferred over SCC. See
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx for some reasons
> why.
>
> But it really depends on what your data loss tolerance is. Continuous
> replication (in any form) is not a zero data loss solution. You have the
> potential of losing a little bit of data on unscheduled outages. See
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124521.aspx for a discussion
> of the data that would be lost in the event of a failover. If you need a
> zero data loss solution, then your choice would be to use SCC and
> third-party replication.
>
> If you don't need zero data loss, and you can tolerate possibly losing the
> data discussed in that article, then CCR+SCR would be our recommended
> deployment. SCR does not have any site membership requirements (although
> it does have domain membership requirements - see
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx for more detail).
>
> Hope this helps.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Scott Schnoll
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for
> newsgroup purposes only.
>
>
> "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
> news:O2PL$b0OIHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> thanks alot, after reading my question again, I noticed I left important
>> information out...
>>
>> Here is what the client wants to do :
>> The goal is to have DB, Server and site resiliency...They have under 1000
>> users, running single Exchange 2003 Server.
>>
>> Scenario 1 : What client is thinking now
>> Exchange 2003 Cluster A/P on corp site.
>> Use a 3rd party product ( Neverfail witch they had previously purchased )
>> for site resiliency.
>>
>>
>> Scenario 2 : What we want to recommend them :
>> Exchange 2007 SP1 either CCR or SCC ( prefer CCR )
>> Use SCR for site resiliency
>> This will be on Windows 2003, so we have to make sure Exchange 2007 SP1
>> SCR with Win2K3 works...on different AD sites...
>>
>> But client want's us to show them advantages and disadvantages of each...
>>
>> Any help would be great...
>> Thanks !!!
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
>> news:eUD$gH0OIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
>>> Replication is not really clustering.
>>>
>>> The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange
>>> Server 2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for
>>> Exchange data, which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively,
>>> SCC (and Exchange Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler,
>>> does not co-exist with other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4
>>> virtual servers on the cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires
>>> similar hardware and entire solution needs to be cluster-certified.
>>>
>>> Single Copy Clusters
>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
>>>
>>> Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
>>>
>>> Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
>>>
>>> You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
>>> provide another layer of redundancy (including across
>>> datacenters/sites). SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or
>>> non-clustered/standalone SCR sources can replicate to
>>> clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a one-to-many and many-to-one
>>> relationship.
>>>
>>> Standby Continuous Replication
>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bharat Suneja
>>> MVP - Exchange
>>> www.zenprise.com
>>> NEW blog location:
>>> exchangepedia.com/blog
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
>>> news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
>>>> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
>>>> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>>>>
>>>> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
>>>> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks !!!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:37:06 -0800
author: John Fullbright fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom
Re: Comparaison on Exchange 2003 Clustering and Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
On Dec 10, 11:08 am, "Thinkpad21" wrote:
> thanks alot, after reading my question again, I noticed I left important
> information out...
>
> Here is what the client wants to do :
> The goal is to have DB, Server and site resiliency...They have under 1000
> users, running single Exchange 2003 Server.
>
> Scenario 1 : What client is thinking now
> Exchange 2003 Cluster A/P on corp site.
> Use a 3rd party product (Neverfailwitch they had previously purchased )
> for site resiliency.
>
> Scenario 2 : What we want to recommend them :
> Exchange 2007 SP1 either CCR or SCC ( prefer CCR )
> Use SCR for site resiliency
> This will be on Windows 2003, so we have to make sure Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR
> with Win2K3 works...on different AD sites...
>
> But client want's us to show them advantages and disadvantages of each...
>
> Any help would be great...
> Thanks !!!
>
> --
> --
>
> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in messagenews:eUD$gH0OIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> > There's no comparison at all between the 2 because Standby Continuous
> > Replication is not really clustering.
>
> > The equivalent of Exchange Server 2003's clustering model is Exchange
> > Server 2007's Single Copy Cluster (SCC). Both use shared storage for
> > Exchange data, which becomes the single point of failure. Comparatively,
> > SCC (and Exchange Server 2007 clustering model in general) is simpler,
> > does not co-exist with other server roles so no HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4
> > virtual servers on the cluster. SCC (like Exchange 2003) requires similar
> > hardware and entire solution needs to be cluster-certified.
>
> > Single Copy Clusters
> >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125217.aspx
>
> > Exchange Server 2007 also offers Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR).
>
> > Advantages of Cluster Continuous Replication over Single Copy Clusters
> >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997928.aspx
>
> > You can use SCC or CCR to provide automatic failovers, and use SCR to
> > provide another layer of redundancy (including across datacenters/sites).
> > SCR can be used in any combination - clustered or non-clustered/standalone
> > SCR sources can replicate to clustered/non-clustered SCR targets in a
> > one-to-many and many-to-one relationship.
>
> > Standby Continuous Replication
> >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676502.aspx
>
> > --
> > Bharat Suneja
> > MVP - Exchange
> >www.zenprise.com
> > NEW blog location:
> > exchangepedia.com/blog
> > ----------------------------------------------
>
> > "Thinkpad21" wrote in message
> >news:uTCPy1zOIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi,
>
> >> Was wondering if there is anywhere from MS or other sources that I can
> >> find advantages or disadvantages of Exchange 2003 Cluster and Exchange
> >> 2007 SP1 SCR.
>
> >> I have a client that want's to implement Exchange 2003 Clustering, but
> >> trying to convince him to use Exchange 2007 SP1 SCR instead...
>
> >> Can anyone provide any help please !!!
>
> >> Thanks !!!
>
> >> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scenario 1 may not work. I'm not 100% sure, but I do not think you
can use a combination of Neverfail and MSCS as you describe. I think
Neverfail only works on non-clustered Exchange server. You will want
to ask the vendor directly.
David A. Bermingham, MCSE
Director of Product Management
http://www.steeleye.com
date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:47:34 -0800 (PST)
author: daveberm
|
|
